Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Digital Service Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House panel hears bill package to create Michigan State Digital Service and a legislative Digital Oversight Office
Summary
Lawmakers in the House Appropriations Committee heard experts and sponsors on a three-bill package (HB 5504, HB 5505, HB 5663) that would create a state digital service inside DTMB, a legislative digital oversight office, and a cap on IT contracts; witnesses cited poor government software outcomes and offered examples of time and cost savings, while members raised FOIA and scope concerns.
The Michigan House Appropriations Committee spent the second half of its hearing on a three-bill package to change how the state procures and oversees IT projects. House Fiscal Agency staff and outside experts argued the bills would reduce costly project failures; several members pressed sponsors on oversight guardrails and whether the new offices would duplicate DTMB.
Michael Knossen of the House Fiscal Agency summarized the bills and estimates: HB 5504 would create a State Digital Service office within DTMB to advise on and, in some cases, block or redirect IT projects the office deems high‑risk; HB 5505 would establish a legislative Digital Oversight Office with investigatory authority and appointment by a majority of each house; HB 5663 would cap IT projects at 36 months and $10 million, though the bill does not define "project." Knossen said estimated staffing for the digital service is roughly 15–20 employees with a preliminary cost estimate around $4.8 million annually, while an oversight office was estimated between roughly $1.8 million and $2.7 million depending on staffing.
Outside experts urged the committee to move forward. Waldo Jaqueth of U.S. Digital Response warned of widespread poor performance on government software projects, saying, "Government software projects have absolutely abysmal success rates," and recommended codifying a digital-service function and setting thresholds for mandatory review. He cautioned, however, that the new team will need time to staff up before taking oversight of every qualifying project.
Sarah Thunberg, director of Colorado Digital Services, offered an empirical example of benefits: her team worked with Colorado’s Department of Revenue to reduce contact‑center hold time, which she said saved Coloradans "3.7 million minutes of hold time" and produced meaningful value for a modest staffing cost. Sponsors argued the modest annual cost of the office could prevent much larger overruns on flawed IT projects.
Several lawmakers voiced concerns about scope and guardrails. Representative Price asked about the oversight office’s ability to demand records and an explicit exemption from the Freedom of Information Act, asking what protections would prevent overreach and preserve sensitive data; sponsors and witnesses acknowledged those concerns and said legal boundaries and collaboration with DTMB were intended but would be clarified in follow-up. Representative Glanville asked whether the new office would duplicate existing DTMB functions; witnesses noted Colorado’s digital service operates within a centralized IT agency and said collaboration—not duplication—was the model.
What happens next: Committee members asked sponsors and fiscal staff for follow-up on appraisal verification (in the earlier conveyance discussion), hiring and appointment procedures, verification of cost-saving estimates, and specific guardrails related to FOIA and data access. No vote occurred during this session.
